Venezuela's legislative elections

A Pyrrhic victory

SELDOM has an election victory tasted so bitterly of defeat. Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's leftist president, had defined the legislative elections held yesterday as a plebiscite on his rule, spoken of the need to “demolish” the opposition and said that nothing less than a two-thirds super-majority in the 165-seat National Assembly would do. But with six races still to be defined, the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) had won just 96 seats, with the opposition taking 63.

Worse still for the president, the opposition is claiming a majority of the popular vote. Although the national electoral authority (CNE) has not yet released a vote tally, the Venezuela Unity (MUD) coalition, to which 60 of the 63 opposition candidates elected belong, says the government lost by 52% to 48%. If so, this would be just the second time in 12 years that Mr Chávez has lost an election, following the defeat of his constitutional-reform referendum in 2007. The PSUV only retained its congressional majority because of gerrymandering and a drastic reform of the electoral law that eliminated proportional representation.

Both the president and his campaign chief, Aristóbulo Istúriz, brushed aside suggestions of failure. Using Twitter, Mr Chávez called the result a “solid victory”, saying it was “enough to continue deepening” his “revolutionary socialist” project. But the PSUV's vanishing act on election night told a different story: its campaign headquarters emptied out by mid-evening, preventing journalists from obtaining comments from its members. At the MUD's base of operations, in contrast, opposition leaders clustered around microphones as they awaited the results.

Because the government brought the elections forward, the new congress will not take office until January, giving the PSUV free rein to rule as it pleases for nearly three more months. Afterwards, however, the party's underwhelming electoral performance will limit Mr Chávez's freedom to govern. Without a 110-seat super-majority, he will need support from the opposition to win some votes, such as appointments to the Supreme Court and the CNE. And if the PSUV fails to reach 99 seats, the president will no longer be able to legislate by decree. To circumvent such requirements, Mr Chávez may have to bypass the legislature through his control of the supreme court, a heavy-handed tactic he has used in the past.

The result also establishes a clear outline for the 2012 presidential campaign. A poor result for the MUD would have unleashed a power struggle in its ranks and might well have led to its disintegration. Now, the coalition can focus on debating how it will choose a rival to Mr Chávez. The candidacy of Henrique Capriles, the governor of the state of Miranda, has already been announced. “The president has been given notice,” Enrique Mendoza, an opposition leader who won a seat in the next congress.

Perhaps most importantly, the vote shows that Venezuelan democracy has not been reduced to a mere façade. In 2005 the opposition boycotted legislative elections, a decision that made it far easier for the president to cement his hold on power. Now that the government has accepted a disappointing electoral outcome, opposition leaders who argue that voting is a waste of time will be further marginalised. After 11 years of Mr Chávez's revolution, Venezuela is politically split down the middle. Neither side will be able to “demolish” the other anytime soon.

Carter was not criticising the government's conduct in the elections, he was criticising Chavez's centralisation of political power. You said that Chavez is very brutal in elections, comparing him to Mugabe. Please provide evidence that Chavez has systematically brutalised and intimidated the Venezuelan people to vote for him. You are just making stuff up, either because it fits your general impression of Venezuela, which you have probably received from FOX news or some other equally ludicrous news agency, or because you feel the need to lie to convince the world that Chavez is something he is not, because you hate him so much. In either case, you are plain wrong. I have been here throughout most of the important elections, they have always been orderly, peaceful, and people have never been scared of expressing their views. Why do you need to lie in order to score points against Chavez? At least criticise him for what he actually does wrong, there is a lot to choose from.

Not allowing a media outlet to renew a contract is not the same as shutting down stations that are critical of the government. The concession belongs to the government, and they are within their rights to do so. In the UK, a journalist and the director of the BBC got fired simply for saying that the government had 'sexed up' the Iraq weapons dossier. And what country anywhere in the world would renew a concession to a TV station that had helped orchestrate a coup against them?

But look carefully at what has happened in Venezuela. From my perspective, Venezuela is one of the most democratic countries in the world. Where it is lacking in democracy, it is only the opposition who have themselves to blame. They engaged in dirty tactics to remove Chavez instead of following the constitution. They engaged in a coup, a general strike, and a boycott of the last congressional elections, as well as general economic sabotage. If you kidnap the president, well, if he returns, expect him to be a little paranoid. The opposition radicalised Chavez, and if they'd left him alone, he would probably have become another Lula...we'll never know, though, because they were unable to play fair.
If you boycott elections, well, expect to have a congress which is dominated by the government. If you engage in an illegal general strike, well, expect to lose your job. If your media station calls for a coup and the assassination of the president, well, expect to lose your license. To be honest, I see the government here being actually rather tolerant of things that wouldn't be done in other countries. For me, the problem in Venezuela is not an oppressive regime, the problem is the opposite, there is no law, and people do whatever the hell they like, which in itself is oppressive. If Venezuela were really like Cuba, well, there wouldn't be crime, because Cuba is one of the safest countries in the world, in exchange for some basic freedoms.

About government employees having to wear red shirts and go to the marches, yes it is true. And some of them don't want to do it either. But this is a government that found itself under attack from within by an opposition that was hell-bent on bringing it down, fair means or foul. Opposition supporters didn't get fired from government positions until after the general strike; if they had acted in a responsible way, they would still have their jobs, and many of the ministries and state industries would be functioning in a far more efficient way, because the loss of their expertise was a big loss for the country.

By acting in an undemocratic way and resorting to foul play, the opposition brought about their own downfall, and also made a mess of some important things in the country. Venezuela could have been like Brazil; instead, it has struggled in the face of a fanatical former ruling class, desperate to get back their old privelage.

What do you mean by 'there is no freedom of the press'. Everyday, I can walk down the street, and pick up any number of newspapers saying stuff about the government that they could never say in the UK or US, I can get in a taxi and listen to the people on the radio insult the government and call for the removal of Chavez, I can walk into a shop and see Globovision calling Chavez an undemocratic dictator...

Some dictatorship!!!!

There are two Venezuelas. One is the Venezuela of the cities, and middle class, and yes it is suffering from crime and inflation, although inflation now is much less than under the previous neo-liberal governments, or have your family forgotten how what you could buy with one bolivar got transformed into what you can buy with 1000 bolivares. Have your family forgotten that under Perez, thousands of people were massacred by the army in Caracas in 1989? Are those the good old days?

The other Venezuela is the rural Venezuela, and yes, Chavez is very popular there. If the Venezuelans would ever bother to go out and visit it, they would see villages that had been forgotten now with clinics, schools, roads, drinking water, even solar power systems. Rural Venezuela has less media coverage, but it is the majority, and that is why, when you see the election results, Chavez loses the cities, but wins the countryside. Until the opposition actually realise that more than half of the population live in the countryside and want their interests heard, they will never win an election.

But we'll never know, will we, because the opposition resorted straight away to undemocratic tactics. They could easily have worked the political system in such a way to 'bring him into the fold', as it were, in the way Lula, from the radical left, ended up in bed with the major business interests in Brazil. But they were not patient, they couldn't stand to be parted from their old privelages, and they acted like a bunch of spoiled kids parted from their toys. And as a result, they lost all their influence over the political system and government institutions.

If Chavez is insane, then he's a mad genius, because he's managed to outwit the opposition throughout his 10 years in power. If Chavez is a buffoon, then that doesn't say very much for the intelligence of the group of people who have been unable to dislodge him from power for all this time. Now they are back in the congress again, and I hope it will mark some sort of reconciliation between the two sides, because the fact is, if the opposition one day get into power again, the PSUV will be the opposition, and if they and their supporters decide to act in the same way as the right wing opposition here has acted, well, then may God have mercy upon Venezuela.

How exactly is Chavez brutal in elections? Every group of international observers, European, American, of the Venezuelan elections have praised their professionalism and fairness. Compare it to Colombia, where the paramilitiary take over voting booths and force people to vote for the right-wing parties, and kill left-wing trade unionists and activists. I've even heard of them cutting their opponents in two with saws: that is real brutality.

The opposition and magazines like the Economist make up a whole illusion about Venezuela, and they lie and lie and lie, and unless you actually live here and see the truth with your own eyes, you would never know it is a lie. And even people living here are blind to the reality that exists, or they see it, but for their own narrow interests they lie too. Come to Venezuela, go out to the countryside or into the barrios, not just the middle class and wealthy areas of the cities, and see with your own eyes why Chavez has the support he has. Pick up a newspaper in the street, or turn on the TV, and see why it is ridiculous to say there is no freedom of expression. I am tired of seeing so many lies and distortions about this country.

If what you say is true and it wouldn't make a difference, then why block it? I guess we'll never know (BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WON"T ALLOW IT). But there is no denying that there is a positive correlation between areas that the opposition can reach (via TV signal) and its level of support.
Rural people in Vzla are not stupid, but they ARE blind; blind to what's happening in the rest of the country; the government's corruption and inefficiency and the unfeasibility of its socio-economic model.
And another thing, the opposition in Vzla is not all corrupt, self-interested and "desperate to get back their old privileges". After all... a large percentage of these people are the same who voted Chavez into power, hoping for a change in the old status quo.
The desperation of the opposition comes from seeing how he’s ruining the country; taking over productive industries and companies and completely destroying them; diverting resources which should be used not only for development but basic operation of these industries to “social, populist programs” and to buy international support with the sole purpose of perpetuating himself into power; virtually eliminating all domestic private investment and with a few exceptions foreign investment; making the economy ever more dependent on (declining) oil exports and rising food imports; imposing a ridiculous stone-age currency exchange control; expropriating businesses for political gain and to hide government mismanagment; and the list goes on and on and on.
If Chavez had had a little more vision, he could have done both things, develop the country economically while addressing social issues, lifting urban and rural areas out of poverty. But that's the big difference between Chavez and Lula, for Chavez, it's all about politics, because that's the only thing he knows (and is good at), from an economic stand-point, he's a disaster. And before you start quoting statistics on poverty reduction, yes, he may have lifted people out of poverty through handouts, but the source of those handouts is rapidly depleting. Venezuela’s growth in GNP in years past had nothing to do with economic planning, just a temporary increase in oil prices. Now that prices are back to $70/BBL !!!!!!!!! the economy is in recession, what a joke…!!!!!!

Do you not find it a bit suspicious that Chavez' stronghold is now in rural areas where the "opposition led TV channels" have no open signal? Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, that's the real reason why he revoked RCTV's license? What does that say about freedom of speech? People in rural areas only know what they see on state TV.
If the opposition could get it's message out and reveal to rural Venezuela what the cities already know, I bet you it would be a WHOOOOOLE DIFFERENT STORY.
And saying Chavez could have or would have been like Lula, is an insult to Lula.

Have you visited rural Venezuela? There are places where they don't even have a TV!!!! And then there are parts that, although they are very poor, they somehow have enough money to put a satellite dish on the side of their shack. The people in the countryside might not have a lot of education, but they are not stupid. They don't make judgements based upon what the media is telling them, government or opposition, they make them based upon what they see with their own eyes. And they see a government giving them schools, clinics, roads, electricity, and political inclusion, where previous governments had given them nothing. They had RCTV up until a year ago, and it didn't make any impact on them then, and why would it now? What it broadcasts is so far removed from their daily lives and experience, that it is completely irrelevant to them.
What do they care about urban crime and inflation? They have plenty of their own food, plus subsidised food from the government MERCAL. Only, like I mentioned earlier, in the states that border with Colombia, is insecurity bad enough for them to vote against Chavez, which they did. They are not blind, nor are they sheep, it is simply common sense, because they are the ones who are gaining out of this arrangement, at least in the short term. Is it sustainable? Perhaps not, unless a real reconciliation comes about in this country between the two sides, because you have a situation where this half of the country is happy, but the other half is unhappy, and ultimately, the projects in the countryside depend upon institutions and resources from the cities. But unless the opposition grows up and recognises the increased expectations of these people, and finds a way to communicate with them, then if one day they find themselves in power, they are going to have a very big problem on their hands. These people have been lifted out of the most abject poverty, and on top of that, they have been armed. They don't want to return to the way things were before. This is what I hear from them, time and time again.
The problem here is the huge divide that exists between the two sides here. Chavez, and the way he speaks, have a lot to answer for in creating that polarisation, it is true. But in my opinion, the opposition are even more to blame; they completely over-reacted to the presidency of Chavez in its early years, and they are unable to shake their image as self-interested, bitter losers, desperate to get back their old privelages, so they can be the corrupt ones in charge instead of the other guys. Maybe it is a cultural problem...corruption seems to have been a way of life here for many years. How do you change a culture?

You make good points, but I think this statement is incorrect, others may have more accurate figures:

"Rural Venezuela has less media coverage, but it is the majority, and that is why, when you see the election results, Chavez loses the cities, but wins the countryside."

Rural Venezuela is not the majority. When I was following the elections they mentioned that out of 17 million registered voters, roughly 9 million where located in the most populated states, those with the largest cities and where the opposition has a numerical majority. The other 8 million are in the rural states where government typically has had majority. It's true the gerrymandering of voting districts, we've talked about so much, that the now the minority (chavistas) "won" this election but celebrated with long faces.

Like eap45 said, Chavez is insane, bipolar at best. Some of the arguments you make are plausible but I disagree with this statement:
"The opposition radicalised Chavez, and if they'd left him alone, he would probably have become another Lula"

If you watch videos from Chavez speech from La Havana prior to the 1999 visit you can tell right away where he was going all along. As a military, even a mediocre one, Chavez had a plan all along to transform Venezuela into a communist regime. The opposition merely accelerated the process. Comparing Lula with Chavez is like comparing Patton with Gomer Pyle.

chavez, like mugabe uses the entire power of the state to win elections, and in general be a giant socialist thug. you can lie and squeal and squirm all you want. this includes forcing people to goto rallies, using the judicial system to harrass and even jail opponents, using any arm of bureaucracy to shut down or limit the range of critical messages.

but hey what do I care. you can continue to support chavez till he has totally imploded venezuela. after all its not my country he's throwing into the crapper. viva socialism!

I couldn't agree more. Just to add "another stripe to that tiger", like we say in Venezuela: With the servile aid of Chavez's puppet Comptroller Closdovaldo "Rufian" Russian, Chavez has disqualified and will continue to disqualify to run for public office any person he dislikes. That broad category includes opposing political leaders that he can't readily throw in jail with fabricated charges, like for example, Alejandro Peña Esclusa.

venezuela is very much like zimbabwe. in both places you have a fanatical autocrat in charge. but if you squint real hard you can see glimmers of hope. mugabe is very brutal in elections, from massive state backed discrimination to literal violence against any opposition, like chavez. yet he still suffered an electoral defeat of sorts..

Really? Not allowing media outlets to renew contracts is freedom of the press to you? Setting an arrest warrant for the owner of Globavision? That's freedom of press to you? It's called censorship, and it's definitely constraining the press. No one is referring to the typical people talking about how ridiculous and contradictory Chavez is (because he is), but it's the barriers they try to put forth that are constraining essential freedoms. And what do you say about forcing people to go represent him with their red shirts, and being essentially fired from their jobs if they do not participate? That's democracy to you? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Also, you cannot right a wrong, with another! Yes you are correct in that previous leaders were also corrupt, but does that mean that it's OK that Chavez is trampling on the rights of all the citizens? Does that mean he can just expropriate property of other organizations and people? Does that mean he can damage the economy completely?

As for rural Venezuela, yeah I know he's pretty popular there. In fact that's what my uncle told me back in 2006--two weeks later he was murdered.

FYI: the folks in redshirts are obligated to go and be in their "red shirts" or else they get fired from their jobs (police, etc.). His "exreme" popularity is completely made up. What really exists are frustrated, fearful people in the country that remember the good old days when everyone in Latin America went to Venezuela for jobs and progress. I say this only from the views of my family that are currently there--from all classes of society.

Chavez is insane. Not only that but if you look at his previous interviews (youtube) he totally contradicted himself years ago, when explaining how essential democracy is, and how freedom of the press would never be obliterated. And now of course, there is no freedom of the press. Furthermore, economically speaking, he has NO CLUE how to run an economy. Inflation in Venezuela is above 30%, record highs this day and age, and his manipulation of currency exchange has just created barriers for corporations and a black market for dollars!

The day he's gone, is the day that Venezuela and the rest of Latin America for that matter, can rejoice.

actually krsn, even the incredibly servile lefty loving carter center started making noises against chavez's abuses of power recently. so basically your a total and complete liar. chavez of course being chavez went ape on carter(does chavez have any other response?)

"I am increasingly concerned about Chavez's inclination to consolidate all political power incrementally in his own office and away from the influence of an independent--and necessary--judiciary, and sometimes away from autonomous bodies within the administration who are apart from the legislature that he controls almost completely now [...] Personally I was disappointed to see him depart from what I think was a fair chance that was honestly the result of legitimate elections, to an increasing domination on his part that led him to have a more authoritarian government."
-jimmeh carter

if you're a hardcore leftist that senile old coot is bagging on you you know you've stepped so far over the line that only the insane, the greedy and the blind could follow you.